Opinion
570142/21
11-10-2021
Seth Scruggs, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. City of New York, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
Defendant, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered July 16, 2019, as denied its pre-answer cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.
PRESENT: Edmead, P.J., Hagler, Silvera, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered July 16, 2019, reversed, without costs, cross-motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff's failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), by setting forth in his notice of claim "the time when... and the manner in which the claim arose," warranted dismissal of the complaint (see Foster v City of New York, 112 A.D.3d 783 [2013]; Soto v City of New York, 161 A.D.2d 246 [1990]). The notice of claim at issue, which merely alleged "digital tapes of a larceny" on a certain No. 6 train platform, did not allege the date and manner in which the purported incident occurred, and contained no reference to any acts or omissions attributable to defendant. Therefore, the notice was too vague to permit defendant to conduct a meaningful investigation into plaintiff's claim and to assess the merits of that claim (see Teresta v City of New York, 304 NY 440, 443 [1952]; Mollerson v City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 70 [2004]).
In view of our determination, we reach no other issue.